Thus have I heard. [660] On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Sāketa, at Kāḷaka’s Park. [661] There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: “Bhikkhus!”

“Venerable sir!” those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:

“Bhikkhus, in this world with its devas, Māra, and Brahmā, among this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans, whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I know.

“Bhikkhus, in this world with its devas, Māra, and Brahmā, among this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans, whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I have directly known. It has been known by the Tathāgata, [662] but the Tathāgata did not become subservient to it. [663]

“Bhikkhus, if I were to say, ‘In this world with its devas … whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I do not know,’ that would be a falsehood on my part.

“Bhikkhus, if I were to say, ‘In this world with its devas … whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I both know and do not know,’ that too would be just the same. [664]

“Bhikkhus, if I were to say, ‘In this world with its devas … whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind—that I neither know nor do not know,’ that would be a fault on my part. [665]

(1) “So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathāgata does not misconceive the seen, does not misconceive the unseen, does not misconceive what can be seen, does not misconceive one who sees. [666] (2) Having heard what can be heard, he does not misconceive the heard, does not misconceive the unheard, does not misconceive what can be heard, does not misconceive one who hears. (3) Having sensed what can be sensed, he does not misconceive the sensed, does not misconceive the unsensed, does not misconceive what can be sensed, does not misconceive one who senses. (4) Having cognized what can be cognized, he does not misconceive the cognized, does not misconceive the uncognized, does not misconceive what can be cognized, does not misconceive one who cognizes.

“Thus, bhikkhus, being ever stable among things seen, heard, sensed, and cognized, the Tathāgata is a stable one. [667] And, I say, there is no stable one more excellent or sublime than that stable one.”

Amid those who are self-constrained, the Stable Onewould not posit as categorically true or falseanything seen, heard, or sensed,clung to and considered truth by others. [668]

Since they have already seen this dart [669]to which people cling and adhere, saying “I know, I see, it is just so,”the Tathāgatas cling to nothing.

Notes:

[660] Ce has this in brackets. Be and Ee do not have it at all.

[661] According to Mp, Kāḷaka was a wealthy financier and the fatherin-law of Anāthapiṇḍika’s daughter Cūḷasubhaddā. At the time of her marriage, he had been a devotee of the naked ascetics and knew nothing about the Buddha or his teaching. Cūḷasubhaddā contrived to get him to invite the Buddha and the monks for a meal offering. After the meal, the Buddha gave a discourse that established him in the fruit of stream-entry. Kāḷaka then built a monastery in his park and donated both monastery and park to the Buddha. One day, when the bhikkhus who were natives of Sāketa were sitting in the meeting hall discussing the Buddha’s success in converting Kāḷaka, the Buddha read their minds and knew they were ready for a discourse that would settle them in arahantship. It would also cause the great earth to quake up to its boundaries. Hence he addressed the bhikkhus.

[662] Mp: “By these three terms (jānāmi, abbhaññāsiṃ, viditaṃ) the plane of omniscience (sabbaññutabhūmi) is indicated.” In the history of Buddhism, as well as in modern scholarship, the question whether the Buddha claimed omniscience has been a subject of debate. The Buddha certainly rejected the claim that one could know everything all the time (see MN 71.5, I 482,4–18) as well as the claim that one could know everything simultaneously (see MN 90.8, II 127,28–30). But he also says that to hold that he totally rejects the possibility of omniscience is to misrepresent him (MN 90.5, II 126,31–27,11). Thus it seems to follow that what the Buddha rejected is the possibility of continuous and simultaneous knowledge of everything, but not discrete and intentional knowledge of whatever can be known (which would exclude much of the future, since it is not predetermined).

[663] Taṃ tathāgato na upaṭṭhāsi. Mp: “The Tathāgata did not become subservient to any object at the six sense doors, that is, he did not take it up (na upagañchi) through craving or views. For it is said: ‘The Blessed One sees a form with the eye, but he has no desire and lust for it; the Blessed One is fully liberated in mind…. The Blessed One cognizes a phenomenon with the mind, but he has no desire and lust for it; the Blessed One is fully liberated in mind’ (see SN 35:232, IV 164–65). By this the plane of arahantship (khīṇāsavabhūmi) is indicated.”

[665] Taṃ mam’assa kali. Mp: “That statement would be a fault of mine. With the above three statements, the plane of truth (saccabhūmi) is indicated.”

[666] Mp: “He does not misconceive (na maññati) visible form by way of craving, conceit, or views; and so for the other objects. By this passage, the plane of emptiness (suññatābhūmi) is explained.”

[667] The word tādī, originally a simple referential term meaning “that one,” takes on a special sense when used to designate the Buddha or an arahant. Nidd I 114–15 explains that an arahant is called tādī because he has transcended preferences, given up (catto) defilements, crossed (tiṇṇo) the floods, and has a liberated (mutto) mind.

Mp: “Being ever stable … is a stable one (tādīyeva tādī): ‘Stable’ means exactly the same (ekasadisatā). The Tathāgata is the same both in gain and loss, fame and obscurity, blame and praise, and pleasure and pain…. By this the plane of the stable one (tādibhūmi) has been explained. As he concluded the teaching with these five planes, on each of the five occasions the earth quaked as testimony.”

[668] I paraphrase Mp’s explanation of this verse: “He would not take even one claim of the speculative theorists (diṭṭhigatikā)—who are ‘self-constrained’ (sayasaṃvutesu) in the sense that they are constrained or blocked by their conceptions—to be categorical or supreme and trust it, believe it, fall back on it as true or false (evaṃ saccaṃ musā vāpi paraṃ uttamaṃ katvā na odaheyya, na saddaheyya, na pattiyāyeyya), thinking: ‘This alone is true and anything else is false.’” This explanation nicely connects the verse to the prose line, “the Tathāgata did not become subservient to it.”

[669] MP identifies the “dart” as the dart of views (diṭṭhisalla). Elsewhere craving is spoken of as the dart, for instance, at MN II 258,27, and SN I 40,7; in still other passages, the dart is sorrow, as at 5:48, 5:50.

On one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Saketa at Kalaka's park. There he addressed the monks: "Monks!"

"Yes, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said: "Monks, whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That do I know. Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & brahmans, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. That has been realized by the Tathagata, but in the Tathagata[1] it has not been established.[2]

"If I were to say, 'I don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be a falsehood in me. If I were to say, 'I both know and don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be just the same. If I were to say, 'I neither know nor don't know whatever in the cosmos... is seen, heard, sensed, cognized... pondered by the intellect,' that would be a fault in me.

"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer.

"When hearing...

"When sensing...

"When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer.

Thus, monks, the Tathagata — being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized — is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime.

"Whatever is seen or heard or sensed and fastened onto as true by others,One who is Such — among the self-fettered —wouldn't further claim to be true or even false.

"Having seen well in advance that arrowwhere generations are fastened & hung — 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' — there's nothing of the Tathagata fastened."

Interesting that how seemingly minor differences in translations and the corresponding understandings may make big difference in meditation practice and the results. Following are the three translations of "diṭṭhaṃ na maññati":

For this particular sutta I would go with the translations of Thanissaro Bhikkhu or Bhikkhu K. Nanananda.In the footnotes of his translations of this sutta in "Magic of the Mind", Bhikkhu K. Nanananda writes:

'Na mannati : Mannana marks that stage in sense perception when one egotistically imagines or fancies a perceived 'thing' to be out there in its own right. It is a fissure in the perceptual situation which results in a subject - object. dichotomy perpetuating the conceit and 'mine'.[...]The Comm: (AA. SHB. 519) takes the words datttha datthabbam in the text to mean: `having seen, should be known' and explains the following words dittham na mannati' as a separate phrase meaning that the Tathagata does not entertain any cravings, conceits or views, thinking: I am seeing that which has been seen by the people'. It applies the same mode of explanation throughout. It is perhaps more plausible to explain dattha or dittha (vl. in Burmese MSS; see A. II 25 fn. 3)' as an ablative form of the past participle giving the sense: `as apart from from sight'; and, `datthabbam dittham' taken together, would mean: 'a visible thing'. So also, the other three corresponding terms: sutta muta and vinnatam The Buddha Jayanthi Tipitaka Series (No. 19, Sinhalese script) recognizes this reading but follows the Comm. in rendering them as absolutives.The Sangiti Pitaka edition (Burmese script) as well as the P.T.S. edition, has the absolutive form: 'sutva' 'mutvd' and vinnatva -which is probably a re-correction following the commentarial explanation,

Last edited by SamKR on Sat Jan 18, 2014 5:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

At one time the. Exalted One was staying at Saketa in Kalaka's monastery. There the Exalted Oneaddressed the monks, saying: `Monks'. `Revered Sir,' replied those monks in assent. The Exalted Onesaid:

"Monks, whatsoever in the world with its gods, Maras and Brahmas among the progenyconsisting of recluses and brahmins, gods and men, - whatsoever is seen, heard, sensed,(1) cognized,attained, sought after and pondered over by the mind - all that do I know. Monks, whatsoever in theworld ......... of gods and men, - whatsoever is seen, ........ by the mind, - that have I fully understood;all that is known to the Tathagata (2) but the Tathagata has not taken his stand upon it.(3)If I were to say `Monks, whatsoever in the world..... of ..... gods and men -whatsoever is seen .....by the mind - all that, I do not know' – it would be a falsehood in me’.(4) If I were to say: ‘I bothknow and know not’ – that too would be a falsehood in me. If I were to say: ‘I neither know it noram ignorant of it’ – it would be a fault in me (5). Thus, monks, a Tathdgata does not conceive (6) of a visible thing as apart from sight(1a); he does not conceive of ‘an unseen’ (2a) he does not conceive of a'thing-worth-seeing', (3a) he does not conceive about a seer. (4a)He does not conceive of an audible thing as apart from hearing; he does not conceive of 'anunheard', he does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-hearing'; he does not conceive about a hearer. Hedoes not conceive of a thing to be sensed as apart from sensation; he does not conceive of anunsensed; he does not conceive of a `thing-worth-sensing'; he does not conceive about one whosenses. He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from cognition; he does not conceiveof an uncognized; he does not conceive of a `thing-worth-cognitiog'; he does not conceive aboutone who cognizes.

Thus, monks, the Tathagata, being such-like in regard to all phenomena seen, heard, sensed,and cognized, is `Such'. (5a) Moreover, than he who is `Such', there is none other greater or moreexcellent, I declare.(6a)

`Whatever is seen, heard, sensed or clung to,is esteemed as truth by other folk,Midst those who are entrenched in their own views, (7a)being 'Such' I hold none as true or false.

This barb I beheld, well in advance,(1b)'whereon mankind are hooked, impaled.`I know, I see 'tis. verily so' - (2b)no such clinging for the Tathagatas

Notes:

(1) 'muta': Sensations arising from taste, touch and smell.

(2) According to the Commentary (AA) 'the plane of omniscience' sabbannutabhumi has been made known by the three phrases: 'all that do Iknow', 'that have I fully understood' and 'all that is known to the Tathagata.'

(3) Comm: 'The Tathagata does not take his stand upon, or approach by way of craving orviews. The Exalted One sees a form with the eye, but in him there is no desire and lust (for it); heis well released in mind. The Exalted One hears a sound with the ear . . . . . smells an odour withthe nose ..... tastes a flavour with the tongue .... touches a tangible with the body ...... cognizes anidea with the mind, but in him there is no desire-and-lust; he is well released in mind (S. IV 164) -hence was it said that the Tathagata takes no stand upon it. It should be understood that by thisphrase the plane of the Influx-free khinasavabhumi is made known.'

(4)This rendering is in accordance with the reading 'na janami found in the Chattha Sangiti edition.Enquiries have revealed that it conforms to the Mandalay Slabs. The P.T.S. edition, as well as someSinhala script editions, gives ' janami omitting the negative particle, but this is unlikely, as itcontradicts the Buddha's own statement in the preceding para. The initial declaration 'all that do Iknow' tamaham jdndmi') is reinforced by what follows: `that have I fully understood' (tamahain abbhannasim `all that is known to the Tathagata' (tam tathigaiassa viditam") A significant reservation hasalso been added : `but the Tathagata has not taken his stand upon it' (tam tathagato na upatthdsi'). Hencethe reading janami would lead to a contradiction: 'If I were to say .......... all that do I know ........ itwould be a falsehood in me'. The variant reading 'na janami on the other hand, suggests itself as thesecond alternative of the tetralemma, followed as it is by the third and fourth alternatives.The relevance of these three alternatives to the context is reflected in that reservation referred toabove.

(5)The phrases: 'it would be a falsehood in me', 'that too would be a falsehood in me,' 'it would be afault in me', are said to indicate the 'plane of truth' (saccabhumi).

(6)'Na mannati : Mann ana marks that stage in sense perception when one egotistically imagines orfancies a perceived 'thing' to be out there in its own right. It isa fissure in the perceptual situation which results in a subject - object. dichotomy perpetuating theconceit and 'mine'.

(1a) The Comm: (AA. SHB. 519) takes the words datttha datthabbam in the text to mean: `having seen, should beknown' and explains the following words dittham na mannati' as a separate phrase meaning that the Tathagata does notentertain any cravings, conceits or views, thinking: I am seeing that which has been seen by the people'. It applies thesame mode of explanation throughout. It is perhaps more plausible to explain dattha or dittha (vl. in Burmese MSS;see A. II 25 fn. 3)' as an ablative form of the past participle giving the sense: `as apart from from sight'; and,`datthabbam dittham' taken together, would mean: 'a visible thing'. So also, the other three corresponding terms: suttamuta and vinnatam The Buddha Jayanthi Tipitaka Series (No. 19, Sinhalese script) recognizes this reading but followsthe Comm. in rendering them as absolutives.The Sangiti Pitaka edition (Burmese script) as well as the P.T.S. edition,has the absolutive form: 'sutva' 'mutvd' and vinnatva -which is probably a re-correction following the commentarialexplanation,

(2a) 'adittham na mannati': According to the Comm. this means that the Tathagata does not fancy (due to craving etc.)He is seeing something which has not been seen by the people. But the expression seems to imply just the opposite.It brings out the idea behind the statement: "If I were to say: 'Monks, whatsoever in the world ... of ... gods and menwhatsoever is seen ... by the mind -all that I do not know,' it would be a falsehood in me."

(3a) `datthabbam' na mannati': Here the full gerundival sense of the verb is evident. The Tathagata does not considerany of those 'sights' that people cherish, as 'worth-whileseeing' - in the highest sense. He does not see anythingsubstantial in them.

(4a) 'dattharam na mannati': The Tathagata does not entertain any conceit of being the 'agent' behind seeing. When'sights' lose their object-status they do not reflect a 'seer' on the subjective side. These four modes of conceivingrepresent the plane of voidness' sunnatabhumi

(6a) 'tesu ...... sayasamvutesu The Comm. says: 'among those who are of (divers) views and who hadgrasped them having themselves recollected and cherished those view-points'. The expression rather conveys thesense of self -opinionatedness due to philosophical in-breeding, and may be rendered by: 'among those who arerestricted samvuta to their own views'.

(7a) [Seems to be missing in the PDF...]

(1c)etanca sallam paligacca disva `Having seen this barb well in advance'- explained by the Comm as thebarb of views which the Buddha saw in advance, at the foot of the Bodhi tree.

(2c)`janami passami tatheva etam': A phrase often cited in the Pali Canon as representing the stamp ofdogmatism characteristic of speculative views. It is on a par with the dogmatic assertion: `idamevasaccam moghamannam' (`This alone is true, all else is false') which accompanies the formulation of theten 'Unexplained Points' (avyakatavatthuni).

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Accomplished One, so I heard:"Bhikkhus, the world has been discovered by the Perfect One, the Tathagata: the Perfect One is dissociated from the world. The origin of the world has been discovered by the Perfect One: the Perfect One has abandoned the origin of the world. The cessation of the world has been discovered by the Perfect One: the Perfect One has realized the cessation of the world. The way leading to the cessation of the world has been discovered by the Perfect One: the Perfect One has maintained in being the way leading to the cessation of the world. "In the world with its deities ... whatever can be seen, heard, sensed (by nose, tongue or body), and cognized, or reached, sought out and encompassed by the mind, has been discovered by the Perfect One: that is why he is called a Perfect One (Tathagata). All that he says, all that he utters, between the night when he discovers the supreme full enlightenment and the night when he attains final Nibbana, the element of Nibbana without result of former clinging left, is true {tathd)y not other than that: that is why he is called a Perfect One (Tathagata). As he says, so (tatha) he does; as he does, so (tatha) he says: that is why he is called a Perfect One (Tathagata). In the world with its deities ... it is the Perfect One who is the Transcendent Being Untranscended, All-seer and Wielder of Powers: that is why he is called a Perfect One." Itx. 112; A. 4:23

"Whatever in this world with its deities ... is to be seen, heard, sensed, and cognized, or reached, sought out and encompassed by the mind, that I know, that I have directly known. Now while that is recognized by a Perfect One, he nevertheless does not use it as a basis (for conceits). Were I to say of all that, that I know it not, that would be falsely spoken by me; and were I to say of it that I know it and know it not, that would be the same; and were I to say of it that I neither know it nor know it not, that would be incorrect on my part. So, having seen what can be seen, a Perfect One conceives no conceit3 of what is seen, he conceives no conceit of what is unseen, he conceives no conceit of what could be seen, he conceives no conceit of any seer. Having heard what can be heard ... Having sensed what can be sensed ... Having cognized what can be cognized ... he conceives no conceit of any cognizer. A Perfect One thus equipoised towards things seen, heard, sensed, or cognized, remains thus equipoised; and there is no other equipoise that is beyond or superior to that equipoise, I say." A. 4:24

translation: Ven. Nanamoli

Whatever in this world with its deities ... is to be seen, heard, sensed, and cognized, or reached, sought out and encompassed by the mind, belongs to namarupa, which is determination for arisng of consciousness. Such knowledge may be useful, but it will not give us direct knowledge of what consciousness "is". But it is exactly knowledge of what cosciousness "is", constitute liberation: wisdom is to be developed, consciousness is to be fully understood M 43

Perhaps this is an interesting idea: in order to develop knowledge, each day we should learn something new, in order to gain wisdom we must be able to suspend all our knowledge. In realization of voidness, there is no knowledge of namarupa, or at least such knowledge is not used as a basis (for onceits).

The man who wants to avoid grotesque collapses should not look for anything to fulfill him in space and time.

At Dīgha i,9 <D.i,185>, Potthapāda asks the Buddha whether perception arises before knowledge, or knowledge before perception, or both together. The Buddha gives the following answer: Saññā kho Potthapāda pathamam uppajjati, pacchā ñānam; saññ'uppādā ca pana ñān'uppādo hoti. So evam pajānāti, Idapaccayā kira me ñānam udapādí ti. ('Perception, Potthapāda, arises first, knowledge afterwards; but with arising of perception there is arising of knowledge. One understands thus: 'With this as condition, indeed, knowledge arose in me.'') Saññā thus precedes ñāna, not only temporally but also structurally (or logically). Perception, that is to say, is structurally simpler than knowledge; and though perception comes first in time, it does not cease (see CITTA) in order that knowledge can arise. [a] However many stories there are to a house, the ground floor is built first; but it is not then removed to make way for the rest. (The case of vitakkavicārā and vācā—A NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPĀDA §5—is parallel.) Ñanavira SN: Saññā

Cf. the layers of complexities in a horizon, or the structure of a line. To the extent that objective truth is a consolidation of the real and the imaginary, i.e. the real point of view of the individual and the imaginary points of view of others -- the consolidation itself being an individual's real point of view of a higher order of complexity -- there is no real basis to cling to any point of view: some just happen to be real others imaginary: all are impermanent.

I see knowledge as essentially an act of reflexion, in which the 'thing' to be known presents itself (is presented) explicitly as standing out against a background (or in a context) that was already there implicitly. In reflexion, a (limited) totality is given, consisting of a centre and a periphery—a particular cow appears surrounded by a number of cattle, and there is the judgement, 'The cow is in the herd'. Certainly, there is an intention to judge, and this consists in the deliberate withdrawal of attention from the immediate level of experience to the reflexive (cf. DHAMMA [b]); but the question is not whether judgment is an intentional action (which it is), but whether there can be intention (even reflexive intention) without a subject ('I', 'myself') who intends. Ñanavira L. 145 | 155] 2 July 1965

This is where Husserl goes awry: while he recognizes that “active synthesis” is founded upon “passive synthesis” he believes that such an act of intentionality entails an ego who does the intending. Whereas in the Suttas it is feeling that brings about the intentional act of judging (yaṃ vedeti taṃ sañjānāti MN.18 and elsewhere in the SN).

Last edited by pulga on Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.

boris wrote:Whatever in this world with its deities ... is to be seen, heard, sensed, and cognized, or reached, sought out and encompassed by the mind, belongs to namarupa, which is determination for arisng of consciousness. Such knowledge may be useful, but it will not give us direct knowledge of what consciousness "is". But it is exactly knowledge of what cosciousness "is", constitute liberation: wisdom is to be developed, consciousness is to be fully understood M 43

Perhaps this is an interesting idea: in order to develop knowledge, each day we should learn something new, in order to gain wisdom we must be able to suspend all our knowledge. In realization of voidness, there is no knowledge of namarupa, or at least such knowledge is not used as a basis (for onceits).

Regarding that quote from MN 43, it is interesting to compare it with a couple others to put it in context:

MN 43: Mahavedalla Sutta wrote:"Discernment & consciousness, friend: Of these qualities that are conjoined, not disjoined, discernment is to be developed, consciousness is to be fully comprehended."

This, together with the role of consciousness in the five aggregates, seems to suggest that discernment is part of the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the ending of stress, and consciousness is part of the noble truth of stress.

"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the origination of stress'... 'This noble truth of the origination of stress is to be abandoned' [2] ... 'This noble truth of the origination of stress has been abandoned.'

"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the cessation of stress'... 'This noble truth of the cessation of stress is to be directly experienced'... 'This noble truth of the cessation of stress has been directly experienced.'

"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress'... 'This noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress is to be developed'... 'This noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress has been developed.'

Understanding consciousness along with the other aggregates with right discernment has the function of leading to seeing how the three marks of inconstancy, stressfulness, and not-self apply, leading to dispassion, which then leads to liberation:

SN 22.59: Anatta-lakkhana Sutta wrote:"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

culaavuso wrote: "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

Right, the main objection against knowledge is that: This world does not deserve to be known

The man who wants to avoid grotesque collapses should not look for anything to fulfill him in space and time.

culaavuso wrote: "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

Right, the main objection against knowledge is that: This world does not deserve to be known

Maybe not, but here it is, day after day. So like it or not, the matter of liberation becomes tied to the matter of participation. Except for an arahant having spoken his last words, perhaps. But it is noteworthy, to me, that an arahant such as the Buddha did participate in the maximally compassionate way right up to the very end.

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

kirk5a wrote: But it is noteworthy, to me, that an arahant such as the Buddha did participate in the maximally compassionate way right up to the very end.

Right, and out of compassion He teach right way of living, Amiel would agree with you :

It is clear that the western nations in general, and especially the Americans, know very little of this state of feeling. For them life is devouring and incessant activity. They are eager for gold, for power, for dominion; their aim is to crush men and to enslave nature. They show an obstinate interest in means, and have not a thought for the end. They confound being with individual being, and the expansion of the self with happiness—that is to say, they do not live by the soul; they ignore the unchangeable and the eternal; they live at the periphery of their being, because they are unable to penetrate to its axis. They are excited, ardent, positive, because they are superficial. Why so much effort, noise, struggle, and greed?—it is all a mere stunning and deafening of the self. When death comes they recognize that it is so—why not then admit it sooner? Activity is only beautiful when it is holy—that is to say, when it is spent in the service of that which passeth not away.

Amiel'sJournal

The man who wants to avoid grotesque collapses should not look for anything to fulfill him in space and time.